2006 Chevrolet HHR vs. 2010 Mercury Mariner
To start off, 2010 Mercury Mariner is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Chevrolet HHR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Chevrolet HHR would be higher. At 2,500 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mercury Mariner is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mercury Mariner (171 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 28 more horse power than 2006 Chevrolet HHR. (143 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mercury Mariner should accelerate faster than 2006 Chevrolet HHR.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2010 Mercury Mariner (232 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 29 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Chevrolet HHR. (203 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2010 Mercury Mariner will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Chevrolet HHR.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Chevrolet HHR | 2010 Mercury Mariner | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mercury |
Model | HHR | Mariner |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Hatchback | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2196 cc | 2500 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 171 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 203 Nm | 232 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 4450 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1806 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1727 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2619 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 10.2 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 62 L |